Can one morally enter into a state of "irregular standing"

[maurin]

That’s right, I should have read it better.

Thank you for the apology. A Theology professor I once had reminded us very often that because of the Cross, Love is all about saying ‘I’m sorry.’

Hmm… so in an attempt to oppose doctrinal and liturgical abuse, they indirectly support clerical disobedience? Can you validate that this is morally acceptable? It may well be, perhaps doctrine takes greater precedence than obedience, but I would like to see some support for this.

I cannot speak for anyone else but myself, Sarpedon, but I can assure you that my decision to assist at the SSPX Mass exclusively was not taken lightly, nor in the heat of any moment, nor without a lot of interior honesty with myself.

I fully understand–to the best of my own ability–the status of the SSPX, and also of my own status within the Church. Try to believe me when I say that I love the CHurch, I love Him. I fail at my love quite frequently.

I struggle with issues and affects of predation in my childhood. Many years of therapy have equipped me to handle my everyday life, but sometimes extreme stress causes me to isolate myself and use myself in ways God did not intend. I was told repeatedly by many different Priests in my area “not to worry, the Church will revise Its Teachings on Morality.” No attempt made to help me to give my sufferings or my shame to Jesus on the Cross, unite these things within me to His Cross—no mention made at all of the Cross in Parishes bereft of any image of His Sorrowful Passion.

In these Parishes I was offered the wide road, not the narrow one. I had come to feel like the camel trying to fit in the eye of a needle, watching the men entrusted with my soul trying to size up the needle’s eye to accomodate my girth, rather than watching them excersize my soul to fit within the eye.

I get that from my SSPX Priest. It isn’t easy, I still fail, and at this stage in my “development” I restrain myself for fear of humiliation at Confession, and my Love for Jesus Christ Crucified, rather than anticipating the free pass the others Priests gave to me----with the best of intentions, I’m sure, but the old adage reminds us that the road to hell is paved with such intentions.

The Church resides in Rome in the person of the Successor to Peter and the Magisterium. If and when Rome says it’s a sin to assist at their Masses, I will be obedient. Unhappy, but obedient. But If I die tomorrow, Sarpedon, I have too much at risk in my soul. What I am learning about what it means to be human from my Priest far outweights, in my mind, his Irregular Canonical Status.

Have mercy on us, Sarpedon.

 

[maurin]

That is not what I asked at all. Can one morally enter into a state of irregularity?

I would also like to add: Can one morally give indirect support to those in a state of irregularity?

I gave you the answer from my perspective…sorry if that it not good enough for you, but you will notice eventually that not even the CHurch draws perfect lines between white and black, but recognizes all different shades of grey in between, as is proper to the individual She is counselling.

 

[Timothysis]

The question of seriousness in associating oneself with a group that has placed itself in a state of irregular standing is a good one.

One can also ask the question, how serious is it to participate in a Mass that is illicit, meaning “illegal,” under Canon law? And is it acceptable for a person to knowingly associate themselves with a group that, once again, knowingly celebrates the sacraments in a manner that the Church has declared “illegal.”

 

[Sarpedon]

I cannot speak for anyone else but myself, Sarpedon, but I can assure you that my decision to assist at the SSPX Mass exclusively was not taken lightly, nor in the heat of any moment, nor without a lot of interior honesty with myself.

Thank you for participating in this discussion and sharing your position. In this thread I don’t intend to judge anyone, but rather examine the question in an objective fashion.

The Church resides in Rome in the person of the Successor to Peter and the Magisterium. If and when Rome says it’s a sin to assist at their Masses, I will be obedient. Unhappy, but obedient. But If I die tomorrow, Sarpedon, I have too much at risk in my soul. What I am learning about what it means to be human from my Priest far outweights, in my mind, his Irregular Canonical Status.

Hasn’t the Vatican at least recommended that we avoid SSPX masses?

I realize that many priests outwardly obedient to Rome are in fact disobedient due to their theological or moral positions. This is a grave problem in the church, and I’m sure we agree on this point. IMHO, exchanging one type of disobedience for another does not solve the problem, if not worsen it. I realize that you disagree.

 

[Sarpedon]

I gave you the answer from my perspective…sorry if that it not good enough for you, but you will notice eventually that not even the CHurch draws perfect lines between white and black, but recognizes all different shades of grey in between, as is proper to the individual She is counselling.

I asked whether one can morally be in a state of irregularity. You responded by saying that one cannot morally attend a new-age mass. This is not what I asked. It is possible that both being in irregularity and attending new-age masses are immoral. It is also possible for one to be moral and the other immoral, or for both to be moral.

My question can be answered with a yes or no.

 

[notsmart]

What are the shades of Grey for Jesus in his relationship to his Bride?

 

[bpbasilphx]

Do you believe that the Church is in a crisis?

No more than for the last 2000 years of being in the crisis of fighting the gates of Hell as she has been doing since Pentecost.

 

[maurin]

I asked whether one can morally be in a state of irregularity. You responded by saying that one cannot morally attend a new-age mass.

no, Sarpedon, I did not. Please read responses more carefully. What I said was ***I *** cannot…

This is not what I asked. It is possible that both being in irregularity and attending new-age masses are immoral. It is also possible for one to be moral and the other immoral, or for both to be moral.

My question can be answered with a yes or no.

You are asking for black and white when the Church recognizes shades of grey, from charcoal to light smoke.

That is the best answer I will give you. Sorry if it is not sufficient.

 

[maurin]

What are the shades of Grey for Jesus in his relationship to his Bride?

The context in which I used the expression had nothing to do with the relationship between Jesus and His Bride. The context was personal to an individual. Surely you have heard from your confessor that not each person who commits the exact same sin has the same responsibility?

 

[notsmart]

The Church makes quite a few black and white distinctions about things as a matter of fact.

 

[notsmart]

The context in which I used the expression had nothing to do with the relationship between Jesus and His Bride. The context was personal to an individual. Surely you have heard from your confessor that not each person who commits the exact same sin has the same responsibility?

The true meaning of the word Church, and communion in her is most definately related to the relationship Jesus has with His Bride. He does not have concubines. Abraham was allowed to, but Abraham is not who founded the Church.

 

[maurin]

Thank you for participating in this discussion and sharing your position. In this thread I don’t intend to judge anyone, but rather examine the question in an objective fashion.

Hasn’t the Vatican at least recommended that we avoid SSPX masses?

I’m sure someone can provide a link, it has been given on other threads, but the good Cardinal Hoyos has said that if one assists at the SSPX believing that the SSPX IS the center of the Church and not Rome, then one has developed a schismatic mentality. However, if one assists there for love of the Traditional Mass and Teachings, then one is fulfilling his “obligation.”

I realize that many priests outwardly obedient to Rome are in fact disobedient due to their theological or moral positions. This is a grave problem in the church, and I’m sure we agree on this point. IMHO, exchanging one type of disobedience for another does not solve the problem, if not worsen it. I realize that you disagree.

And this was my point in my first post on this thread. I am done with the recalcitrance of the priests of my Diocese. I no longer wish to be offered the wide road. I desire the narrow one. I am getting great help from my confessor-Priest of the SSPX. If I am making an “exchange” as you have termed it, I feel much safer on this side.

 

[maurin]

The true meaning of the word Church, and communion in her is most definately related to the relationship Jesus has with His Bride. He does not have concubines. Abraham was allowed to, but Abraham is not who founded the Church.

I believe I understand your larger point, notsmart, I just don’t fully agree with you. I believe you are forcing a comparison of apples to oranges, in this particular context.

 

[notsmart]

I believe I understand your larger point, notsmart, I just don’t fully agree with you. I believe you are forcing a comparison of apples to oranges, in this particular context.

What part are you not in full agreement with me on?

 

[maurin]

What part are you not in full agreement with me on?

that we are discussing the same thing.

 

[notsmart]

that we are discussing the same thing.

Well, then is the word Church a generic one, such as people use the word Kleenex then? As the protestants claim? Or not?

I do believe you have to ignore the comparison to be able to make the choices you have.

 

[jmcrae]

It is the Society itself, (bishops, priests, brothers etc.) which is ‘irregular’. The faithful, as long as they remain Catholic, are simply Catholics.

They are Catholics who aren’t validly going to Confession or licitly receiving Holy Communion, though - so, are they in schism, as well? It seems to me that they would be - it seems like they would have the same status as the first generation of Lutheranism would have had - illicit Masses and invalid marriages and Confessions, until the final break when the generation who had valid Holy Orders died off, at which point it became a different religion altogether.

 

[maurin]

Well, then is the word Church a generic one, such as people use the word Kleenex then? As the protestants claim? Or not?

I do believe you have to ignore the comparison to be able to make the choices you have.

Only if the Church, read Rome in the person of the current Successor of Saint Peter, Pope Benedict XVI, tells us that the Society itself is fully outside of Communion with Her. Which, unfortunately for your desire to denigrate the Society, She has not done.

I do repeat though, notsmart, that I do understand your larger point, I certainly do not agree with you–because the Society is not in fact schismatic, only in Irregular Canonical Status.

You are trying to force a comparison of apples and oranges.

 

[Sarpedon]

no, Sarpedon, I did not. Please read responses more carefully. What I said was ***I *** cannot…

What I said was:
All of the posts so far go along the lines of “Well, technically I’m not associated with them, so I’m not technically in an irregular standing”. Is this an admission that one cannot morally be in a state of irregularity? Why do you point out the fact that you are not in an irregular standing (a debatable point), if there is nothing wrong with being in an irregular standing in the first place?

You said:
it is an admission that I cannot morally attend Mass where the Teachings of the Apostles are flouted for new-age relativistic feel goody-isms.

It seems to me that you moved your response from the matter of irregularity to the matter of new-age masses.

You are asking for black and white when the Church recognizes shades of grey, from charcoal to light smoke.

This is impossibly vague. Using your phrase, I could turn anything into relativism. How do I know your use of this phrase is in accordance with the church’s position?

 

[Sarpedon]

Only if the Church, read Rome in the person of the current Successor of Saint Peter, Pope Benedict XVI, tells us that the Society itself is fully outside of Communion with Her. Which, unfortunately for your desire to denigrate the Society, She has not done.

I do repeat though, notsmart, that I do understand your larger point, I certainly do not agree with you–because the Society is not in fact schismatic, only in Irregular Canonical Status.

You are trying to force a comparison of apples and oranges.

(my emphasis)

Please permit me to comment:

This explanation is what this thread is based on. The SSPX’s immediatly assert that it is not in schism (because schism is bad), but merely in an “irregular status” (the goodness or badness of which is not explained). Is irregularity good or bad? Can one morally enter into this position? If one cannot morally enter into such a position, then the distinction between schism and irregularity is effectively pointless.